Gulf War Air Power Survey
The Dhahran area was one of two priorities for air base ground support
Download 5.55 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Figure 3 Air Base Ground Defense
- Close Air Support for Rear Area Security
- Table 4 Integrated Security Forces of U.S. Air Bases
- Air Base U.S. Air Force Other U.S. Service Host Nation Military
- Base security at Dhahran included a combination of Patriot and Stinger missiles. Patriot is shown at left.
- Coalition partners use their own security forces for external air base ground defense.
The Dhahran area was one of two priorities for air base ground support. Photo above shows open storage at Dhahran. In this process, the commanders' assessments of risk was a critical factor. The command relationship provided unity of command as well as the impetus for determining a deliberate and decisive response to any impending threat. Rear battle officers, acting for Maj. Gen. William G. Pagonis, U.S. Army, 22d Support Command, the rear area commander, consulted with air base commanders and other cluster commanders to determine which procedures provided the greatest overall security to the rear area based on the threat and forces available. However, this was not formally established until early January 1991. Operation Desert Shield air base survivability assessments prepared by the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) at each location were used to assist in formulating decisions on security force structure and design. In concert with continuous analysis of threat level and the development of passive security measures at each location, including communication, operations, and tactical deception, measures were integrated to reduce the probability of attacks and to minimize their effects if they did occur. These elements included counter-surveillance operations, reconnaissance patrols, and concentration of available resources at fixed positions and at critical points along main supply routes, alternate transportation routes, and lines of communication. They also included appropriately interfacing passive security measures, including counter-surveillance teams, reconnaissance patrols, and, in some locations, sensor-enhanced security without additional expenditure of manpower. Host nation forces provided security for key terrain surrounding critical facilities or bases. For example, at Dubai Air Base, United Arab Emirates, the Dubai civilian police heavily patrolled the outside perimeter and reported any suspicious activity to U.S. security forces. Also, camel and goat herders that worked in the area around the base possessed cellular telephones and assisted with lookout and surveillance. Any suspicious activities were called into the Minhad local civilian police.844 While host nation security forces exerted rigorous circulation control over the indigenous population, Air Force security police provided circulation control within defended localities. As an added measure of flexibility, CENTAF security police staff developed a quick-reaction force of forty-four men, billeted at Riyadh Air Base, with the capability of being airlifted to any base. For example, this team moved forward to reinforce King Fahd Air Base when security police units responded to aircraft crashes that occurred during the intensive training leading up to the war. Safeguarding classified information demanded particular attention.845 Command and Control While Coalition Coordination Communications and Intelligence Center (C3IC) was not a command echelon, it was used primarily to “harmonize” operational planning in areas such as host nation support and movement control. It became the “combined operations cornerstone,” especially for rear area security operations conducted by other host nation and Coalition forces in the Communications Zone (COMMZ), and for the coordination and execution of defense security operations. Overall planning and coordination was the responsibility of liaison officers of the Figure 3 Air Base Ground Defense participating forces.846 Once the rear area became formally established, security police units within the zone reported through one of three Rear Tactical Operations Centers. Those outside the zone, reported directly to the CENTAF security police operations cell at Riyadh.847 Early during Operation Desert Shield when security-alerting system networks were strained to the limit, it became crucial that the joint communications electronic operating instructions (JCEOIs) used to coordinate U.S. Army support be addressed at CENTAF as well. After several meetings between CENTCOM and ARCENT, the Air Force obtained authorization to receive the same instructions. The U.S. Army military police accepted the CENTAF security police proposal for a classified joint emergency frequency that would be used by all police forces, including Royal Saudi Air Force police, the Ministry of Defense police, and all other Coalition military and civil police agencies. The frequencies were to be used only for emergency operationsand they were incorporated into the joint electronic operating instructions. Close Air Support for Rear Area Security Close Air Support for rear area security was both preplanned and available to meet more immediate requests.848 For example, the 130th Rear Tactical Operations Center was assigned to the commander of the 22d Support Command to plan and coordinate rear area security operations in the Communication Zone.849 Coordination between directorates of General Security, Traffic Internal Security and Civil Defense, played a crucial role, especially outside the zone, as host nation forces were responsible for external air base ground defense, port security, and harbor defense for bases and ports outside the combat zone, but within the theater. Command and control systems identified for rear area security operations had to be compatible with those of the tactical combat force (maneuver element) and systems used by CENTAF air base ground defense units. Liaison teams reported significant rear area activities through the C3IC. Air Base Defense The development of security schemes at the beddown sites did have its problems, which were mostly resolved, however, after the first few weeks when personal relationships and cultural differences were worked out and procedures established. For example, at Shaikh Isa Air Base, Bahrain, CENTAF and MARCENT aircraft shared the runway, along which the Air Force wanted to disperse its aircraft, the Marines wanted to group theirs in order to facilitate air operations coordination. Grouping caused concern for Air Force security officials because it presented lucrative targets and exposed a potential for multiple explosions should one or more aircraft be sabotaged. The CENTAF security police staff at Riyadh found it necessary to send a field grade officer to resolve the differences, and the result was an agreement that the Marines would provide external security, the Air Force internal.850 Therefore aircraft parking issues were resolved using the Air Force parking scheme to enhance security of the aircraft. This was accomplished because RED HORSE engineers constructed additional parking pads and provided additional security barriers. Defending allied personnel and assets in Riyadh presented a more complicated problem. CENTCOM assumed responsibility for protecting British and French elements, as well as its own, with the British and French providing a platoon of security forces to assist. If the security situation in Riyadh deteriorated, CENTCOM planned to use elements of the 82d Airborne to protect the area, in which case it would be designated as the Tactical Combat Force. As long as the situation was not serious, each allied or component command basically provided security for the office buildings and quarters for its personnel. Thus, in the 130th RADC area and the Riyadh community CENTAF staff duties were limited to defense of Riyadh Air Base, the Royal Saudi Air Force Headquarters, and Eskan Village.851 To implement this plan, each allied or component command sent representatives to several coordinating committees. They functioned as elements of the Coalition Coordination Communication Integration Center, which operated on a twenty-four hour basis. In this manner, problems could be presented immediately and resolved quickly.852 Each unit assigned to CENTAF developed security operations plans that outlined cooperation among CENTAF, allied, and host nation security forces. The final scheme was a “three tier defense system.” The outer tier consisted of plain-clothes detectives augmented by a second tier of civil police. The third tier was the internal security provided by Saudi and U.S. Air Force security forces.853 Individual host nation sensitivities were key factors in determining the degree of interaction between Air Force and host nation security forces in the employment of air base ground defense techniques. [DELETED]854,855,856 In some cases, as in the United Arab Emirates, CENTAF security police formed armed patrols off-base. Generally, such less stringent rules regarding employment of U.S. security police forces were in force in nations farther away from the Iraqi-Kuwaiti borders, where there was less danger of direct enemy air or ground attack and less complicated fire support coordination requirements. In such cases, terrorists posed the biggest perceived threat in the form of sabotage or other small-scale strikes. Those bases closer to the perceived battle area were protected by Army forces, even though those units were not necessarily located immediately adjacent to or within the base itself.857 Base security at Dhahran (specifically King Abdul Aziz Air Base) included Saudi Royal Air Force troops, U.S. Army air defense artillery units, and an initial contingent of about 209 Air Force security police from the 1st Combat Support Element out of Langley AFB, Virginia. Navy security forces provided port security. Due to changes in the perceived threat, CENTAF increased its security force strength at Dhahran to 409 prior to the opening of hostilities.858 Once again, Air Force security police provided weapon systems security, assisted by a 90-man Saudi Royal Air Force contingent. The Saudi Royal Air Force security forces protected the perimeter, and the U.S. Army 11th Air Defense Artillery Battery manned a combination of Patriot and Stinger missiles.859 CENTAF Security advised aircrews to take off and land in patterns that avoided dense and populated areas that were within the range of hand-held SA-7 and SA-14 shoulder fired infrared surface-to-air missiles. These areas were rigorously patrolled by Air Force and host nation security forces.860 Table 4 Integrated Security Forces of U.S. Air Bases
59
Base security at Dhahran included a combination of Patriot and Stinger missiles. Patriot is shown at left. 7
Initially, at some locations, such as Thumrait, Oman, the host nation did not allow arming any foreign military person. Therefore, it became the responsibility of Coalition partners to use their own security forces for external air base ground defense at sites where allied units were located.861 In these areas, security police forces initially functioned as liaison and an adjunct security reporting, alerting, and response force, much as security support forces (functional area owner/user, maintenance, and combat service support forces) supplement security at all U.S. Air Force bases. And in some cases, U.S. security forces were restricted to operations with concealed weapons. These initial problems, however, were eventually resolved. U.S. security forces were armed and security police commanders given authority to expend war readiness material munitions for confidence and familiarization training and to train with Coalition forces.862 60
Coalition partners use their own security forces for external air base ground defense. 8
The base beddown complicated security planning for several reasons. The protection of high value assets remained a concern throughout the war. For example, the E-3 AWACS aircraft were all initially located at Riyadh but were eventually dispersed to three different locations, primarily for security considerations.863 In addition, security forces at many bases were also strapped with manpower-intensive weapon/logistics convoy and escort duties, since cantonment complexes were dispersed as far as five to fifteen miles apart. As a result, air bases in the theater precluded any attempt to secure them in a “traditional” air base defense concept. Units developed air base ground defense concepts, devised security schemes, and secured key resources (dispersed aircraft parking areas, POL areas, munitions storage areas and billeting areas, etc.). Reliance on mobile response was widespread because of the distance between locations requiring protection. Furthermore, exercises and evaluations of security requirements had demonstrated that the density of detection mechanisms and the location of response forces were key to successful air base ground defense efforts. As stated above, rapid response was crucial to the rear area security system. Therefore, vehicles and communications quickly emerged as the primary problems for Air Force securityissues also of a major concern during previous conflicts. Security police vehicles did not receive priority for early airlift during deployment.864 Because these specialized armored vehicles were required to support responses over austere terrain and to serve as weapons platforms for heavy and crew-served weapons, they were considered crucial to the successful defense of air bases. In this constantly changing environment, rear area security missions sometimes were redistributed, as U.S. Army units flowed in and out of various locations.865 When U.S. Army forces shifted positions, especially from places like Dhahran and King Fahd, the Air Force security police relied more heavily on sensor technology to provide force multipliers.866 The Terrorist Threat Gen H. Norman Schwarzkopf and Lt. Gen. Charles A. Horner considered terrorism as a top priority, and anti-terrorism initiatives essential.867 After the initial Coalition buildup, intelligence assessments indicated that the feasibility of an invasion of Saudi Arabia had dropped from the most likely to the least likely Iraqi option. During the Christmas holiday period, respective staffs were informed that General Schwarzkopf had become increasingly concerned with the possibility of a preemptive or surprise attack by Iraq. Such an attack might well be expected during the Christmas or New Year's holidays, or prior to the deadline imposed by the United Nations for Iraq to get out of Kuwait. General Horner met with General Schwarzkopf to obtain approval of the CENTAF-recommended security plan for coping with this potential threat. CENTAF security police had developed the plan and disseminated it to all Air Force units. Instructions in it [DELETED] included physical security and anti-terrorist checklists to be used by all units and submitted as addendum to situation reports to CENTAF Security Police. The status of “open items” which represented potential areas of vulnerability were reviewed on a daily basis. The final preparations for Operation Desert Storm were masked by placing many aircraft on ground alert that would permit mission planning, crew rest, and aircraft reconfiguration without revealing Coalition plans. Obviously, this put increased burdens on the security forces. The internal dispersal of aircraft increased the posting requirements for both Air Force and host nation security police forces. Emphasis was placed on security status reporting to step up the intensity of rear area security and air base ground defense network during this period of vulnerability. Another period of vulnerability took place when U.S. Army units were shifted to the left flank in preparation for the ground offensive. During this period, military police units protected lines of communication, and only a squad-size force remained in Dhahran area.868 During this period, CENTAF security police continued to receive sporadic and isolated reports of threats. Most of these reports were terrorist-related, but some indicated potential small arms sniper fire adjacent to installations.869 For example, on 3 February 1991, a civilian contract bus carrying three U.S. military, a Saudi military guard, and civilian driver from the Al Khalid hotel to the Jeddah Air Base and was fired upon. The incident occurred approximately three miles from base, in the city of Jeddah, on a major six-lane highway. The terrorists fired ten to fifteen 9-mm shots, all hitting the passenger side of the bus, spaced from front to rear, inflicting minor injuries on two U.S. military personnel. The Saudis apprehended four Palestinians and two Yemenis as a result of the incident. As the concerns that more attacks would follow, the importance of accurate intelligence became more pronounced, and multisource intelligence became a cornerstone of the rear area security and air base ground defense system. Each Service remained responsible for its own counterintelligence network, with intensive liaison to ensure a coordinated effort.870 61 Directory: sgp -> library sgp -> Sgp country Programme Strategy for op6 sgp -> Itu-d study groups sgp -> Internship with Congressional Campaign Exploratory Committee — Only 4 spots left! sgp -> Using Well Logs in the Petroleum Industry sgp -> Telecommunication development bureau itu-d study groups Download 5.55 Mb. Share with your friends:
|